Automated decision-making (ADMT) laws by state
AI Laws USA tracks 540 U.S. AI rules on automated decision-making across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.
Federal automated decision-making rules (103)
-
Blocked / in litigation
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)
S.D. Ohio · Effective April 16, 2025 · NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2025)
Ohio's Social Media Parental Notification Act — requiring parental consent for minors' social-media use, including algorithmic feeds — was preliminarily enjoined on February 12, 2024, then permanently enjoined on April 16, 2025 when the district court granted summary judgment for NetChoice. The state appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which vacated the district court's injunction in 2026.
-
In effect
Louis v. SafeRent
D. Mass. · Effective November 20, 2024 · Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.)
SafeRent agreed in November 2024 to a $2.275M settlement and a five-year ban on using its 'SafeRent Score' for housing-voucher applicants, after a class action alleged its AI tenant-screening tool systematically denied housing to Black and Hispanic Section 8 voucher holders. The first major AI tenant-screening Fair Housing Act settlement.
-
In effect
EEOC v. iTutorGroup
E.D.N.Y. · Effective September 8, 2023 · EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02565 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2023)
The EEOC's first AI-hiring-discrimination case ended with a $365,000 consent decree in September 2023. iTutorGroup's online application system was programmed to auto-reject female applicants 55+ and male applicants 60+ — a clear ADEA violation through algorithmic age screening.
-
In effect
Thaler v. Vidal (DABUS)
Fed. Cir. · Effective August 5, 2022 · Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023)
Stephen Thaler, inventor of the 'DABUS' AI system, sought to list DABUS as the inventor on two patent applications. The Federal Circuit ruled in August 2022 that under the Patent Act 'inventor' must be a natural person. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2023, settling U.S. law: AI systems cannot be inventors of record.
-
In effect
ECOA / Regulation B (AI credit discrimination)
United States · Effective October 28, 1975 · 15 U.S.C. § 1691; 12 C.F.R. Part 1002
Lenders cannot discriminate in credit decisions and must give you specific, accurate reasons when they deny or worsen your credit — even if the decision was made by an AI model. Earlier CFPB guidance said lenders can't hide behind 'black box' algorithms; that guidance was withdrawn in May 2025, but the underlying statute and regulation still require accurate adverse-action notices.
-
In effect
FCRA (AI in credit & background checks)
United States · Effective April 25, 1971 · 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
When a company uses a consumer report or score — including AI-generated risk scores from background-check and tenant/employment screening firms — to deny you credit, insurance, housing, or a job, it must tell you and identify the agency that supplied the report. You have the right to a free copy of your file and to dispute inaccurate information, no matter how algorithmic the scoring was.
-
In effect
Title VII / ADA (AI hiring)
United States · Effective July 2, 1965 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Federal anti-discrimination law applies when employers use AI tools to screen resumes, score interviews, or rank candidates: if an AI tool disproportionately screens out people by race, sex, disability, or other protected traits, the employer can be liable. The EEOC's specific AI guidance documents from 2023 were removed in January 2025, but the underlying laws are unchanged and still enforceable.
-
In effect
FTC Act Section 5 (unfair/deceptive AI)
United States · Effective September 26, 1914 · 15 U.S.C. § 45
The FTC's basic consumer-protection law bans unfair or deceptive business practices, and the agency applies it directly to AI. Companies cannot lie about what their AI can do, use AI to deceive people, or sell AI tools designed for fraud. The FTC's 'Operation AI Comply' sweep has brought numerous cases since 2024.
-
In effect
DOJ-RealPage Consent Decree (algorithmic rent)
United States · Effective May 1, 2026 · United States v. RealPage, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–2
In November 2025, the DOJ settled with RealPage — the dominant algorithmic rent-pricing software company — requiring it to stop using competitors' real-time pricing data to coordinate rents. The settlement received preliminary court approval in May 2026 and places RealPage under a court-appointed compliance monitor for seven years. Thousands of property managers used RealPage's software; the DOJ alleged it enabled competing landlords to align rental prices, harming renters across the country.
-
In effect
OMB M-25-21
United States · Effective April 3, 2025 · OMB Memo M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025)
OMB Memorandum M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025) is the Trump-era replacement for M-24-10. It sets the binding rule for how federal agencies use AI — requiring CAIO designations, AI use inventories, and risk-management practices for rights/safety-impacting AI, with a pro-innovation framing.
-
In effect
FTC v. DoNotPay
FTC · Effective January 16, 2025 · In re DoNotPay, Inc., FTC No. C-4796 (Sept. 25, 2024)
The FTC settled with 'AI lawyer' DoNotPay in September 2024 over claims the company falsely marketed an AI chatbot as a substitute for a human lawyer, without ever testing whether its outputs matched a competent attorney's work. Part of the FTC's 'Operation AI Comply' sweep.
-
Blocked / in litigation
NetChoice v. Bonta (SB 976)
N.D. Cal. · Effective December 31, 2024 · NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 5:24-cv-07885 (N.D. Cal.)
NetChoice (the tech-industry trade group) challenged California's SB 976 — which restricts addictive algorithmic feeds for minors — and won a preliminary injunction blocking key portions on First Amendment grounds in December 2024. The Ninth Circuit is reviewing. IN SEPTEMBER 2026 THE ARGUMENT WIDENED IN A WAY WORTH RECORDING. The challenge had 'largely centered on how the law violates SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES' First Amendment rights to curate user-generated content and present it as they see fit' — a platform-rights theory. A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION together with the CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY and the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION argues that the law violates TEEN USERS' First Amendment rights TOO. SB 976 requires that teen social media users get their PARENTS' PERMISSION before seeing other users' recommended speech in their feeds. The brief's argument is that recommendation systems serve a DUAL purpose: they help users discover other people's speech, and they get the user's OWN speech in front of a wider audience. On that reading a parental-consent gate on recommendations is not merely a restriction on what a teenager may read — it is a restriction on how far what they say can travel. The brief argues SB 976 'frustrates young people's ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users' speech,' and that it creates 'significant, constitutionally violative, burdens on young users' ability to read and comment on the news, discuss politics, find and share art, share their religious beliefs, or even practice their religion.' This entry is indexed as a protection-relevant record precisely because the interests here point in opposite directions: SB 976 is a child-safety measure, and the parties arguing it is unconstitutional include digital-rights organisations arguing on behalf of the minors it was written to protect.
-
In effect
FDA PCCP Guidance (AI/ML devices)
United States · Effective December 4, 2024 · FDA Guidance (Dec. 4, 2024); 21 U.S.C. § 360e-4
FDA finalized a framework that lets manufacturers update an AI-enabled medical device after clearance without filing a new submission for each change — but only if they pre-specify what changes are allowed, how they'll be validated, and how transparency to clinicians and patients will be preserved.
-
In effect
CFPB AI chatbot circular
United States · Effective October 23, 2024 · CFPB Issue Spotlight (June 2023); CFPB UDAAP / ECOA / TILA enforcement posture (2024)
Building on its 2023 chatbot report, the CFPB has warned that banks and lenders using generative-AI chatbots that mislead consumers — about fees, account terms, or credit denials — face liability under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Truth in Lending Act. Hallucinating chatbots are not a regulatory loophole.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Character.AI Companion Chatbot Suits
M.D. Fla. + E.D. Tex. · Effective October 22, 2024 · Garcia v. Character Techs., Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.); A.F. v. Character Techs., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex.)
Five plaintiffs across two jurisdictions sued Character.AI in 2024 alleging the companion chatbot service caused minors' suicide, self-harm, sexual abuse, and severe mental injury. Garcia v. Character.AI in Florida was the first AI companion wrongful-death suit; in Texas a federal court issued a landmark May 2025 ruling that AI chatbot outputs are not protected First Amendment speech.
-
In effect
FTC Operation AI Comply
United States · Effective September 25, 2024 · FTC Operation AI Comply (Sept. 25, 2024)
FTC enforcement sweep announcing five settlements against firms using AI to enable deceptive or unfair conduct. Establishes a baseline of cases for ongoing AI deception enforcement.
-
In effect
DOJ AI-fraud sentencing guidance
United States · Effective September 23, 2024 · DOJ Criminal Division ECCP (Sept. 23, 2024); Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, ABA White Collar Conf. (Mar. 5, 2024)
The Justice Department updated its corporate compliance guidance in September 2024 to require companies to assess and mitigate AI-related risks, and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco announced in March 2024 that DOJ will seek stiffer sentences when AI is used to commit fraud — treating AI as an aggravating factor.
-
Blocked / in litigation
CCIA v. Paxton (TX SCOPE)
W.D. Tex. · Effective August 30, 2024 · CCIA v. Paxton, No. 1:24-cv-00849 (W.D. Tex.)
The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice partially enjoined Texas's SCOPE Act (HB 18), which restricts targeted advertising and algorithmic content curation for minors, before its September 2024 effective date.
-
In effect
HHS § 1557 Rule (AI clinical tools)
United States · Effective July 5, 2024 · 45 C.F.R. § 92.210; 89 Fed. Reg. 37522
HHS's Section 1557 rule bans discrimination in 'patient care decision-support tools,' which includes AI and algorithmic clinical tools. Covered health programs and providers must identify when a tool relies on patient race, age, disability, or other protected traits and take steps to mitigate the risk of discrimination.
-
In effect
HUD FHEO Tenant Screening AI
United States · Effective May 2, 2024 · HUD FHEO, Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Screening of Applicants for Rental Housing (May 2, 2024)
HUD guidance applying the Fair Housing Act to algorithmic tenant screening — landlords and screening vendors share liability for discriminatory outcomes.
-
In effect
OFCCP AI Selection Guidance
United States · Effective April 29, 2024 · OFCCP AI EEO Guidance (Apr. 29, 2024)
Federal contractors using AI in hiring must comply with OFCCP nondiscrimination requirements: vendor due diligence, recordkeeping, validation under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and accommodations for applicants with disabilities. OFCCP makes clear contractors cannot outsource liability to AI vendors.
-
In effect
DOL WHD FAB 2024-1
United States · Effective April 29, 2024 · DOL WHD FAB 2024-1 (Apr. 29, 2024)
DOL Wage and Hour Division guidance on FLSA, FMLA, PUMP Act, and EPPA compliance when employers use AI for scheduling, timekeeping, monitoring, or performance evaluation.
-
In effect
SEC AI-washing settlement
United States · Effective March 18, 2024 · In re Delphia (USA) Inc., Securities Act Rel. No. 11264 (Mar. 18, 2024); In re Global Predictions Inc., Securities Act Rel. No. 11265 (Mar. 18, 2024)
The SEC charged two investment advisers — Delphia (USA) and Global Predictions — with making false and misleading statements about using AI and machine learning. The firms paid $400,000 combined in civil penalties. It was the SEC's first 'AI-washing' enforcement action and signals scrutiny of overstated AI capability claims in financial services.
-
In effect
CMS MA Rule (AI prior auth)
United States · Effective January 1, 2024 · 42 C.F.R. § 422.101(c); 88 Fed. Reg. 22120 (Apr. 12, 2023)
Medicare Advantage plans cannot use algorithms or AI to deny medically necessary care. Any algorithm-driven coverage decision must comply with traditional Medicare coverage criteria and consider the individual patient's circumstances — not just generic model output.
-
Blocked / in litigation
DOJ / Multistate v. Yardi
W.D. Wash. · Effective December 29, 2023 · Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01391 (W.D. Wash.)
Renters brought a parallel class action against Yardi Systems — RealPage's main competitor in algorithmic rent-pricing — alleging it likewise coordinated multifamily rents across competing landlords. State AGs joined as enforcement actors; the case is moving in parallel with the DOJ-RealPage proceeding.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Lokken v. UnitedHealth (nH Predict)
D. Minn. · Effective November 14, 2023 · Estate of Lokken v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-03514 (D. Minn.)
Families of deceased Medicare Advantage patients sued UnitedHealth in November 2023 over the 'nH Predict' algorithm, alleging the AI tool overrode physicians and prematurely terminated post-acute care coverage with an error rate above 90 percent in appeals — accelerating patient harms and deaths. On March 9, 2026, the court issued a significant discovery order compelling UnitedHealth to produce broad documentation of the nH Predict algorithm, including training data, model documentation, and internal performance audits.
-
In effect
VA Trustworthy AI Framework
United States · Effective September 22, 2023 · VA Directive 1003.2; VA AI Strategy (Sept. 2023)
The VA's Trustworthy AI Framework governs how AI may be used across VA healthcare, benefits, and operations. AI used in benefits or clinical decisions requires human review, bias testing, and an AI use-case inventory submitted to OMB.
-
In effect
CFPB Circ. 2023-03 (AI credit)
United States · Effective September 19, 2023 · CFPB Circular 2023-03 (Sept. 19, 2023)
CFPB Circular 2023-03 clarifies that lenders using AI or other complex credit models for credit denial cannot rely on checklist adverse-action notices. They must provide specific, accurate reasons under ECOA — even if the AI's decision is hard to explain.
-
In effect
CFPB § 1071 Rule (small-biz AI lending)
United States · Effective August 29, 2023 · 12 C.F.R. Part 1002 Subpart B; 88 Fed. Reg. 35150
Lenders covered by the rule must collect and report demographic and transactional data on small-business credit applications — including data needed to detect algorithmic discrimination by AI underwriting models.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Cigna PXDX AI Denial Class Action
E.D. Cal. · Effective July 24, 2023 · Kisting-Leung v. Cigna Corp., No. 2:23-cv-01477 (E.D. Cal.)
Patients sued Cigna in 2023 alleging its 'PxDx' algorithm reviewed and denied roughly 300,000 claims in two months — averaging 1.2 seconds per denial — without genuine physician review, violating California and federal law. Triggered a wave of similar AI healthcare-denial suits against UnitedHealth (NaviHealth) and Humana.
- 73 more
- Mata v. Avianca (ChatGPT fake cites) · S.D.N.Y. · In effect
- EEOC AI Title VII Guidance · United States · In effect
- DoD Directive 3000.09 (LAWS) · United States · In effect
- Huskey v. State Farm · N.D. Ill. · Blocked / in litigation
- FDA GMLP Principles · United States · In effect
- NHTSA SGO 2021-01 (AV/ADAS reporting) · United States · In effect
- NHTSA AV federal framework · United States · In effect
- FDA AI/ML SaMD Action Plan · United States · In effect
- FDA 510(k) — surgical robots · United States · In effect
- Lipps v. City of Fargo — facial recognition wrongful arrest (2026) · D.N.D. · Blocked / in litigation
- Trump AI Innovation & Security EO (June 2026) · United States · In effect
- Florida AG v. OpenAI (AI safety, minors) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
- NAIC AI Evaluation Tool Pilot (12 states, 2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
- Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon En · United States · In effect
- EPA AI Strategic Plan · United States · In effect
- Harper v. Sirius XM · E.D. Mich. · Blocked / in litigation
- ACA § 1557 (AI in patient care) · United States · In effect
- Federal AI Executive Orders · United States · In effect
- DHS AI Critical Infra Framework · United States · In effect
- OMB M-24-18 (superseded by M-25-22) · United States · Repealed / replaced
- USDA AI Strategy · United States · In effect
- GSA AI Procurement Guide · United States · In effect
- NTIA Open Weights Report · United States · In effect
- SSA AI Disability Adjudication · United States · In effect
- NIST GenAI Profile (AI 600-1) · United States · In effect
- FINRA AI Notice 24-09 · United States · In effect
- DOE AI Energy Framework · United States · In effect
- FSMB AI Guidance · United States · In effect
- Treasury AI Cyber Report (Fin. Services) · United States · In effect
- NTIA AI Accountability Report · United States · In effect
- NIST AISI / AISIC · United States · In effect
- CFTC AI trading-scam advisory · United States · In effect
- NSF NAIRR Pilot · United States · In effect
- NAIC AI Model Bulletin (Insurance) · United States · In effect
- CISA AI Roadmap · United States · In effect
- EEOC SEP FY24-28 (AI priority) · United States · In effect
- ED AI in Education Report · United States · In effect
- FDA AI Drug/Bio Guidance · United States · In effect
- DOJ Civil Rights AI Statement · United States · In effect
- NIST AI RMF (voluntary AI risk framework) · United States · In effect
- OSTP AI Bill of Rights Blueprint · United States · In effect
- FTC AI Guidance (2021) · United States · In effect
- Interagency AI/ML Risk Mgmt (OCC/Fed/FDIC) · United States · In effect
- Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) (H.R. 7757) · United States · Proposed / pending
- FTC Proposed Policy Statement — AI Accuracy (July 2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
- 2026-10602 · United States · Proposed / pending
- 2026-12205 · United States · Proposed / pending
- 2026-07087 · United States · In effect
- Mobley v. Workday (AI Hiring Bias) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
- Stop Spying Bosses Act (Senate, 2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
- FTC CARS Rule (AI auto) · United States · Proposed / pending
- FTC Commercial Surveillance ANPR · United States · Proposed / pending
- US S. 5417 AI Emergency Button Act (human shutdown mechanisms) · United States · Proposed / pending
- US H.R. 10210 Doctors Not AI Act (AI in health insurance claim review) · United States · Proposed / pending
- US H.R. 10567 AI Emergency Button Act (House companion) · United States · Proposed / pending
- H.R. 10418 VA Claims AI Accountability Act · United States · Proposed / pending
- US H.R. 9862 Responsible AI for Veterans Act (independent evaluation of VHA AI) · United States · Proposed / pending
- Meta AI Layoff Discrimination Lawsuit (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
- Kistler v. Eightfold AI (FCRA, AI hiring) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
- Benavides v. Tesla (Autopilot) · S.D. Fla. · Blocked / in litigation
- HUD FHEO Digital Advertising AI (withdrawn) · United States · Repealed / replaced
- DOJ/HUD Statement of Interest (algorithmic rent) · DOJ / HUD · Blocked / in litigation
- EO 13960 (federal AI use) · United States · Repealed / replaced
- Gatlin v. St. Louis / AWS Rekognition false arrest suit (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
- 3:26-cv-05949 · District Court, N.D. California · Blocked / in litigation
- SEC PDA Rule (proposed) · United States · Expired
- Algorithmic Accountability Act (2019, died) · United States · Expired
- Algorithmic Accountability Act (2022, died) · United States · Expired
- Algorithmic Accountability Act (2023, died) · United States · Expired
- Algorithmic Justice Act (Markey/Matsui, died) · United States · Expired
- OBBBA §43201 (stripped) · United States · Expired
- FY26 NDAA AI preemption (failed) · United States · Expired
- APRA AI provisions (dead) · United States · Expired
State automated decision-making rules (264)
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
NJ Kids Code Act A4015 (signed Aug 11, 2026; effective Sept 1, 2027)
NJ · Effective September 1, 2027 · N.J. A4015/S3413 (222nd Legislature, 2026) — signed Aug. 11, 2026; effective Sept. 1, 2027
New Jersey's Kids Code Act (A4015/S3413), signed by Governor Sherrill on August 11, 2026, is the most aggressive Age-Appropriate Design Code law in the United States. Effective September 1, 2027, it requires online platforms likely to be accessed by children under 18 to: default privacy settings to the highest available protective level for minor users; ban push notifications during school hours and late at night; prohibit 'compulsive engagement' design features; conduct data protection impact assessments; restrict profiling and advertising; and minimize data collection to what is necessary. It is the first state design code with a private right of action — parents can sue for $5,000 per violation on behalf of their children — making it a much stronger enforcement tool than California's CAADCA (AG-only) or the federal KOSA.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California SB 1119 Adam's Law, companion chatbots (2026)
California · Effective July 1, 2027 · Cal. S.B. 1119 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 190 — Adam's Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 21810 et seq. (approved September 10, 2026; main duties operative July 1, 2027)
California Senate Bill 1119, which the law itself names "Adam's Law" (press coverage calls it the Adam Raine Law), was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026 (Chapter 190). Starting July 1, 2027, companies that run companion chatbots must protect users under 18. By default, a child can chat for no more than one hour at a time and two hours a day, and only a parent can change those limits. Operators must have a crisis plan that points a child to crisis services, must tell a parent as soon as practicable if the chatbot detects a credible threat of suicide or self-harm, must assess risks to children before launching a new or substantially changed chatbot, and must publish a child safety policy. Public prosecutors can seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per affected child, or $15,000 if the violation was intentional, and a harmed child or their parent can sue for actual damages.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
New York SAFE for Kids Act final rules (2026)
New York · Effective January 25, 2027 · N.Y. Off. of the Att'y Gen., SAFE for Kids Act Final Rules (July 28, 2026) (Act eff. Jan. 25, 2027)
New York's Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act got its final implementing rules on July 28, 2026, released jointly by Attorney General Letitia James and Governor Kathy Hochul. The Act itself takes effect January 25, 2027. What makes these rules significant is that they put numbers on age assurance where almost every other regime says only that a method must be 'reasonable.' The rules set an Accuracy Minimum: a method's false positive rate must be no more than 0.1% for minors aged 0 to 7, 1% for ages 8 to 13, 2% for ages 14 to 15, 8% for age 16 and 15% for age 17, excluding cases where a user refuses or fails to provide data and cases where the result is inconclusive. The method must also detect attempts to circumvent it at a rate of 98% or better. A second standard, the Total Accuracy Minimum, applies the same percentage ceilings to false positives and inconclusive outcomes combined — closing the obvious gap, since a method could otherwise hit its accuracy target by returning 'inconclusive' whenever it was unsure. Social media companies must pick a method meeting these rates, test it annually, and keep the test results for at least five years. The graduated thresholds are the design insight: being wrong about a seven-year-old is treated as far more serious than being wrong about a seventeen-year-old.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California SB 867 AI chatbot toy moratorium (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. S.B. 867 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 189 (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22601, 22604.5) — Toys: companion chatbots (signed September 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027; repealed January 1, 2031)
California Senate Bill 867, titled 'Toys: companion chatbots', establishes a FOUR-YEAR MORATORIUM on AI-powered chatbot toys for children under sixteen. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. This is an unusual instrument and worth understanding on its own terms. Almost every AI measure in this dataset regulates a service — an app, a platform, a website — that a child chooses to open. SB 867 regulates a PHYSICAL PRODUCT that a parent buys and a child holds: a toy with a conversational AI inside it. A child does not navigate to it, consent to terms, or understand it as software. The response is not disclosure, not age verification, not a safety plan, but a flat four-year pause on the category for under-16s. A four-year term is also notably long for a moratorium; it is closer to a prohibition with a scheduled review than to a study period. The bill was one of twelve signed the same day in California's online child safety and AI package, alongside SB 1119's companion chatbot duties and AB 1709's restrictions on addictive social media features.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 1709 addictive feeds and under-16 age restriction (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 1709 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 183 — Covered platforms: age restriction: e-Safety Advisory Commission; adds Bus. & Prof. Code § 22682 et seq. and Gov. Code § 11530 et seq.
California Assembly Bill 1709 bars covered platforms — social media and similar apps and websites — from giving users under 16 any 'addictive feature': a personalized, engagement-driven feed, autoplay, or any other feature the Attorney General defines by regulation. Platforms must verify ages and take reasonable measures to keep these features away from under-16s. A platform can still let under-16s have accounts if those accounts have no addictive features; otherwise it must delete under-16 accounts and their personal information. The Attorney General or a local prosecutor can sue for up to $50,000 per affected child for knowing violations ($25,000 if negligent). The law also creates a seven-member, purely advisory e-Safety Advisory Commission. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026 (Chapter 183); as a regular statute it takes effect January 1, 2027. The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed it, arguing it works as a social media ban for under-16s and violates the First Amendment — while supporting two digital-literacy bills (AB 2071 and AB 2298) signed in the same package. No court challenge had been located as of late September 2026.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 2 social media child harm liability (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 2 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) — social media platform liability for harm to children (signed September 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027)
California Assembly Bill 2 makes social media platforms LEGALLY LIABLE for damages to children. Reporting on the signing package describes penalties of up to $1 MILLION PER CHILD where a large social media company is found negligent of harming children. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. This is the enforcement engine of the whole package. The other bills signed that day impose duties — strip addictive features, run risk assessments, alert parents, keep AI toys away from under-16s — and duties without a liability route are frequently unenforced in practice. AB 2 supplies that route, and a per-child measure of damages is the design choice that gives it weight: for a platform with millions of minor users, exposure scales with the affected population rather than being capped at a single institutional fine, which changes the calculation from a cost of doing business into an existential number. The mechanism also differs from the dominant American approach to platform harm, which has generally run through Section 230 disputes and product-liability theories in court rather than through a state statute creating liability directly. The specific negligence standard, the definition of 'large' platform and the relationship to federal law are not established by the located coverage and must be read from the statute.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 1405 AI auditor registry (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 1405, Ch. 178, Stats. 2026 (approved Sept. 9, 2026)
California Assembly Bill 1405 creates a state registry for AI auditors and sets standards for their independence, transparency and integrity. Governor Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, the same day he signed Senate Bill 813, which sets up a framework for independent organizations to assess AI systems. The law takes effect January 1, 2027, and the Government Operations Agency must have the registry running by January 1, 2029, after which AI auditors must be registered. Registered auditors must be independent of the companies they audit, may not audit their own work or seek jobs with the company during an audit, and may not block or punish employee whistleblowers. An auditor who breaks the rules can be removed from the registry and referred to the Attorney General. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan authored the bill.
-
In effect
Connecticut SB 4 surveillance pricing ban (2026)
Connecticut · Effective October 1, 2026 · Conn. Pub. Act 26-64, § 11 (Substitute S.B. 4, 2026) — approved May 27, 2026; effective October 1, 2026
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed Senate Bill 4 on May 27, 2026 (Public Act 26-64), and its surveillance-pricing rules take effect October 1, 2026. The law bars retail sellers and third-party delivery services from 'surveillance pricing' — setting a customized price for a particular shopper based on personal data gathered through tracking technology such as cameras, sensors, biometric monitoring or device tracking. Ordinary discounts, loyalty programs, cost-based differences and supply-and-demand price changes are still allowed. Separately, any business that uses a 'price setting device' to raise online prices must tell shoppers: 'THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED BY A PRICE SETTING DEVICE USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' Only the Attorney General can enforce it, under the state's unfair trade practices law; shoppers cannot sue. The ban arrived as part of a broader overhaul of the state's privacy law rather than as a standalone measure. It is broader in reach than Maryland's Protection from Predatory Pricing Act signed weeks earlier: Maryland's applies to food retailers above 15,000 square feet and third-party delivery services, whereas Connecticut's covers retail sellers generally alongside delivery services.
-
In effect
Washington SHB 1672 (employee monitoring notice, ADS restrictions, emotion AI ban)
Washington · Effective July 1, 2026 · Wash. SHB 1672 (2025 Session), effective July 1, 2026
Washington SHB 1672, effective July 1, 2026, is one of the most comprehensive U.S. employer monitoring laws. Employers must give employees 15 calendar days' written notice before any monitoring begins or before any change to monitoring. Notice must specify what is monitored, the method used, the purpose, who can access the data, and how long it is retained. The law prohibits off-duty monitoring, monitoring in private spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms), and monitoring personal vehicles. It restricts AI-based emotion recognition, gait recognition, and facial recognition in employment-related decisions. Employers must conduct impact assessments before deploying automated decision systems and must provide human oversight of ADS-driven performance evaluations. Employees have a private right of action with damages of at least $500 per violation plus attorney fees. Civil penalties may reach $10,000 per violation. The law applies to any employer with one or more Washington employees, including remote employees of out-of-state companies.
-
In effect
North Carolina AG LivCor algorithmic rent settlement (2026)
North Carolina · Effective June 26, 2026 · NC v. LivCor LLC, consent decree entered June 26, 2026, US v. RealPage Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.); $7M multistate settlement (NC, MN, CA, CO, CT, IL, MA, OR, TN)
North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson joined eight other state attorneys general in reaching a $7 million settlement with LivCor LLC, a Blackstone-owned company that managed approximately 3,500 apartments in North Carolina. The consent decree, entered June 26, 2026 in the Middle District of North Carolina, permanently bans LivCor from using algorithmic pricing software to coordinate rents with competing landlords. The settlement arose from the same litigation targeting RealPage Inc.'s revenue management platform — algorithmic software that critics and now courts have found enables competing property managers to share nonpublic pricing data and move rents in lockstep, keeping apartment rents artificially elevated. The $7 million was distributed among the nine participating state AGs. For North Carolina, the practical scope is the 3,500 apartments LivCor managed within the state. This is an enforcement action rather than legislation — it results from DOJ and multistate AG litigation — but the prohibition is legally binding on LivCor and its successors, and North Carolina's AG participation made it effective for NC residents. The underlying federal case, US v. RealPage Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710, continues separately. AG Jackson also issued guidance warning other property management companies in North Carolina that algorithmic rent coordination practices face the same legal exposure.
-
In effect
Seminole Nation (OK) Data Center / GenAI Moratorium
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma · Effective March 7, 2026 · Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Tribal Council Resolution (Mar. 7, 2026)
First tribal council in the United States to fully bar inquiries, discussions, and development of any data center or generative AI hyperscale infrastructure within Seminole Nation territory. Unanimous (24-0) vote citing water-contamination and sovereignty concerns.
-
In effect
CA CPPA ADMT Regs
CA · Effective January 1, 2026 · 11 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 7200-7232
California's privacy agency finalized binding regulations governing automated decision-making and AI used to make significant decisions about Californians — including hiring, housing, education, healthcare, financial services, and ads to minors. Consumers gain rights to pre-use notice, opt-out, and access to information about how AI made the decision.
-
In effect
CCPA/CPRA + ADMT Regulations
California · Effective January 1, 2026 · Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, div. 6
California's main privacy law gives consumers rights to know, delete, correct, and opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information. New regulations finalized in 2025 add rights around automated decision-making technology (ADMT): businesses using ADMT for significant decisions (jobs, housing, credit, healthcare) must give pre-use notice, let people opt out, and provide access to how decisions were made.
-
In effect
HB 3773 (AI Employment Discrimination)
Illinois · Effective January 1, 2026 · P.A. 103-0804, amending 775 ILCS 5; P.A. 104-0425 (SB 2487, 2026 civil penalty amendment)
Illinois employers may not use AI in ways that discriminate against protected classes in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, or other employment terms, and may not use zip codes as a proxy for protected characteristics. Employers must notify workers and applicants when AI is used in employment decisions.
-
In effect
California CRC rules (FEHA anti-bias law applied to AI hiring/employment tools)
California · Effective October 1, 2025 · Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 (Civil Rights Council ADS regulations); Cal. Gov. Code 12940 et seq. (FEHA)
These regulations make clear that California's existing anti-discrimination employment law applies to automated-decision systems, including AI tools used in hiring, promotion, and other job decisions. Employers cannot use AI or algorithmic tools that discriminate against people based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, age, or disability, and must keep records related to these systems for at least four years.
-
Blocked / in litigation
New Mexico v. Meta public nuisance ruling (2026)
New Mexico · New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, No. D-101-CV-2023-02838 (N.M. 1st Jud. Dist., Aug. 10, 2026) (Biedscheid, J.)
On August 10, 2026 Judge Bryan Biedscheid of New Mexico's First Judicial District declared Meta's products a PUBLIC NUISANCE and ordered $567 million in damages. Combined with an earlier $375 million verdict, the total against Meta in this case reaches $942 MILLION. It is the largest judgment in this dataset and one of very few instances anywhere of public nuisance doctrine being applied to a social media product rather than to a physical hazard. But the most consequential part of the ruling is what the judge said he could NOT do. Biedscheid wrote that the court CANNOT order Meta to request children to submit personal data or be passively tracked online, EVEN FOR AGE-VERIFICATION PURPOSES — because New Mexico's Child's Online Privacy Act DATES FROM 1998 and does not authorise it. So a court willing to find a company liable for nearly a billion dollars still found itself unable to order the single remedy most directly aimed at the harm, because the governing statute predates the problem by a quarter-century. That is the clearest illustration in this dataset of what happens when enforcement outruns legislation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez responded by saying he would propose stronger age assurance legislation to the New Mexico Legislature, describing it as an opportunity to incorporate rapidly evolving technology. Meta disagrees with the ruling and plans to appeal both this award and the earlier verdict; against roughly $60 billion of 2025 profit the financial penalty is not, by itself, decisive.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Illinois SB 3114 — Transparency in Downcoding Act
Illinois · Effective January 1, 2028 · Illinois PA 104-0568 (SB 3114), approved July 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2028 (Transparency in Downcoding Act)
Illinois Senate Bill 3114, the Transparency in Downcoding Act (Public Act 104-0568), signed by Governor Pritzker on July 10, 2026 and effective January 1, 2028, limits how health insurers and other payors can use algorithms to 'downcode' medical claims (pay a claim at a lower billing code than submitted). A payor may use automated tools to flag claims that might justify downcoding, but may not use any algorithm or automated process that bypasses evaluation of all the information the billing professional submitted, and every downcoding determination must be made or reviewed by a natural person following AMA CPT coding guidelines. Payors cannot downcode based solely on diagnosis codes or target professionals who treat complex or chronic patients, and must give notice and a dispute process. Medicaid managed care organizations must also comply.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
NJ Fair Price Protection Act, P.L.2026, c.55 (2026)
NJ · Effective August 1, 2027 · P.L.2026, c.55 (N.J. A4085/A4523 ACS, substituted for S3612/S3717 SCS; 222nd Legislature) — approved July 23, 2026; main provisions effective August 1, 2027; ESL moratorium effective February 1, 2027
Governor Mikie Sherrill signed New Jersey's Fair Price Protection Act (A4085/S3612, P.L.2026, c.55) on July 23, 2026, making New Jersey the third state to curb surveillance-based pricing, following Maryland and Connecticut. The law makes it an unlawful consumer-fraud practice to set or vary the price of groceries and other household necessities based on a shopper's personal data. Loyalty programs, publicly posted group discounts and real cost differences are still allowed. It also places a one-year moratorium on new electronic shelf labels while the state studies them; stores can keep and repair labels they already have. The main pricing ban takes effect August 1, 2027, and the shelf-label moratorium starts February 1, 2027. The Attorney General can sue to stop violations and recover damages.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
NJ Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act
New Jersey · Effective July 1, 2027 · FAIR Act, N.J. P.L.2026, c.43 (A3497/S451), C.56:9-20 to 56:9-26 — approved July 20, 2026; effective July 1, 2027
New Jersey Governor Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act on July 20, 2026 (P.L.2026, c.43). Starting July 1, 2027, it is a violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act for landlords to pay for or use the services of an algorithmic rent 'coordinator' — software that sets or recommends rents, lease terms or occupancy levels using competitors' nonpublic data or the same pricing algorithm across multiple landlords — and for anyone to perform that coordinating function. RealPage-style revenue-management tools are the target. Municipal ordinances that conflict with the act are preempted.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
RI AI Companion Self-Harm Safety (2026)
Rhode Island · Effective January 1, 2027 · R.I. Pub. Laws 2026, ch. 376 (S 2195 Sub A as amended) and ch. 375 (H 7350 Sub A as amended), R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 6-64 — enacted June 22, 2026; effective January 1, 2027
Rhode Island enacted S 2195 / H 7350 on June 22, 2026, and the law takes effect January 1, 2027. Companies that offer AI companion chatbots must build in protocols for users who express possible suicidal thoughts, self-harm or intent to physically harm others, and must then point the user to crisis services such as a suicide hotline or crisis text line. The chatbot must tell users at the start of a conversation, and at least every three hours during it, that they are not talking to a human. Starting July 1, 2027, operators must file yearly reports with the Attorney General on how often the safety protocols were triggered. The Attorney General enforces the law, with civil penalties up to $15,000 per day, directed to suicide prevention programs.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Oregon SB 1546 (AI companion chatbot disclosure + private right of action)
Oregon · Effective January 1, 2027 · Or. SB 1546 (2026 Reg. Sess.), Or. Laws 2026, ch. 85 — effective January 1, 2027
Oregon SB 1546 (Oregon Laws 2026, chapter 85), signed March 31, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027, regulates operators of 'AI companions' — chatbots designed to simulate a sustained human-like platonic, intimate or romantic relationship. Operators must clearly tell users they are talking to AI when a reasonable person could think it was a human; must have a suicide/self-harm protocol that refers users to the 988 lifeline (or a youthline for users under 25) and blocks content encouraging self-harm; and must publish an annual report on crisis referrals. When the operator knows or has reason to believe a user is a minor, the companion must disclose it is AI, remind the minor at least every three hours to take a break, avoid sexual content, avoid claiming to be human or simulating romance or emotional dependence, and avoid engagement-maximizing rewards and guilt-tripping when the minor tries to leave. Anyone who suffers an ascertainable loss can sue for the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, plus an injunction and attorney fees.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
AI Safety Measures Act (frontier model audits)
Illinois · Effective January 1, 2027 · IL SB315 (104th General Assembly, 2025-2026)
Illinois is the first state to require independent third-party safety audits of the largest 'frontier' AI developers (companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind). Covered developers — those with >$500M annual gross revenue whose models meet defined compute thresholds — must publish and annually update a frontier AI safety framework addressing catastrophic risks (defined as incidents threatening 50+ deaths, serious injuries, or $1B+ in damages), file transparency reports before deploying new or substantially modified models, report critical safety incidents within 72 hours (24 hours for imminent harm), and protect whistleblowers. Enforced by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security with the Attorney General; civil penalties; no private right of action. Law takes effect January 1, 2027; audit requirements operative January 1, 2028.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Iowa HF 2635 (no AI-only prior-auth denials)
Iowa · Effective January 1, 2027 · Iowa H.F. 2635, 91st Gen. Assemb. (2026), Sec. 514F.8(2A), eff. Jan. 1, 2027
Iowa lets a utilization review organization use an AI-based algorithm or system to conduct an initial review of a prior-authorization request, but forbids relying on AI as the sole basis to deny, delay, or downgrade a medical-necessity prior-authorization request. A qualified human reviewer — a clinical peer or qualified reviewer — must make the binding determination.
-
In effect
Utah EO 2026-08 pro-human AI in state government
Utah · Effective October 6, 2026 · Utah Exec. Order No. 2026-08 (Oct. 6, 2026)
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed an executive order on Oct. 6, 2026 setting rules for how executive-branch agencies use artificial intelligence. Agencies must avoid AI tools that do not follow the state's 'pro-human' principles, document how AI systems and their inputs and outputs figure in decisions that affect the public, and have staff complete AI literacy training. The Department of Government Operations must keep human-in-the-loop review for determinations affecting individual rights when helping agencies deploy AI.
-
In effect
MD HB 1339 (Automated Decision Systems, 2026)
Maryland · Effective October 1, 2026 · Md. HB 1339 (2026 Reg. Sess.)
Maryland employers that use automated decision systems in hiring, promotion, or termination decisions must disclose to applicants and employees that an automated system is being used. Employers must also conduct and retain impact assessments evaluating whether their ADS produces disparate outcomes by race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Penalties run up to $10,000 per violation. Takes effect October 1, 2026.
-
In effect
Connecticut PA 26-73 (employee electronic monitoring disclosure)
Connecticut · Effective October 1, 2026 · Conn. Pub. Act 26-73 (Substitute SB 472, 2026), eff. Oct. 1, 2026
Connecticut employers must provide written notice to employees before electronically monitoring their activities on employer-owned devices or networks. The law bars employers from engaging in deceptive or covert electronic monitoring of employees. It requires employers to clearly disclose the types of monitoring that may occur and to obtain acknowledgment from employees. The law covers monitoring of email, internet usage, telephone calls, and computer activity on employer systems. It takes effect October 1, 2026 and is enforced by the Connecticut Department of Labor.
-
In effect
Alabama SB 63 (AI in prior authorization, eff. Oct 2026)
Alabama · Effective October 1, 2026 · Ala. Act 2026-589 (SB 63, 2026 Regular Session), approved April 16, 2026, effective October 1, 2026
Alabama's SB 63 (Act 2026-589), approved April 16, 2026 and effective October 1, 2026, limits how health insurers use AI in prior authorization. When an insurer uses AI to decide whether a requested service is medically necessary, the decision must be based on the patient's own medical history and the clinical circumstances presented by the requesting provider. Any decision to deny, delay or modify a prior-authorization request on medical-necessity grounds must always be made by a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional, not by AI. Insurers must certify every year to the Alabama Department of Insurance that their AI does not rely on a group dataset, is applied fairly and equitably, and does not discriminate against any subscriber group or enrollee. They must also disclose their use of AI in utilization review prominently in their written policies and procedures and review the AI's outcomes periodically for accuracy and reliability.
-
In effect
Maine LD 61 (employer surveillance disclosure & prohibition)
Maine · Effective July 14, 2026 · Maine P.L. 2025, Ch. 524 (LD 61 / H.P. 25), 26 M.R.S. § 620-A, effective July 14, 2026
Maine's LD 61 (P.L. 2025, Ch. 524) requires employers to notify employees before any surveillance begins and to disclose surveillance practices to job applicants during interviews. Employers must provide annual written notice to all current employees describing what is monitored, how, and why. Employees may refuse installation of monitoring software on their personal devices. The law prohibits audiovisual monitoring in an employee's home, personal vehicle, or personal property. Civil fines of $100–$500 apply per violation. The law covers all public and private employers in Maine. Effective July 14, 2026.
-
In effect
AZ HB 2175 (AI Insurance Denial — Physician Review)
Arizona · Effective July 1, 2026 · Ariz. HB 2175 (57th Leg., 1st R.S. 2025), signed May 12, 2025, eff. July 1, 2026
Arizona HB 2175 requires health insurers and managed-care organizations to have a licensed physician or medical director individually review each case before denying a health insurance claim or prior-authorization request based on medical necessity or experimental status. Insurers may not rely solely on AI algorithms, automated decision-support tools, or algorithmic recommendations to deny coverage. The law directly targets automated prior-authorization systems that issue denials without physician involvement. Signed May 12, 2025, effective July 1, 2026. Arizona is among the first states to specifically prohibit AI-only health insurance denials by statute.
-
In effect
RI Therapy Chatbot Ban (2026)
Rhode Island · Effective June 22, 2026 · R.I. Pub. Laws 2026, ch. 373 (H 7349 Sub A) and ch. 374 (S 2197 Sub A as amended); R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 40.1-5.5, approved June 22, 2026
Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee signed H 7349 / S 2197 on June 22, 2026, prohibiting any person or business from providing therapy or psychotherapy services using artificial intelligence. Only licensed mental health professionals may conduct such sessions. The law targets AI companion chatbots and virtual therapy products that may lead users to believe they are receiving licensed mental health care from a human professional.
- 234 more
- PR Ley 116-2026 (AI Bot Disclosure in Gov. Services) · Puerto Rico · In effect
- TX TDI Bulletin B-0003-26 (AI in insurance) · Texas · In effect
- Maryland AI Ready Schools Act, SB 720 (2026) · Maryland · In effect
- CA EO N-6-26 (AI Workforce) · California · In effect
- PA v. Character.AI (Fake Psychiatrist Chatbot) · Pennsylvania · Blocked / in litigation
- Connecticut algorithmic rent ban — HB 8002 (eff. Jan 1, 2026) · Connecticut · In effect
- California AB 489 (AI healthcare chatbot misrepresentation ban) · California · In effect
- Nebraska LB 77 (no AI-only prior-auth denials) · Nebraska · In effect
- New York S7882 (felony to use algorithms to coordinate residential rents) · New York · In effect
- Maryland HB 820 (AI in insurance utilization review) · Maryland · In effect
- Ohio statewide school AI policy mandate (2026) · Ohio · In effect
- Raine v. OpenAI · CA · Blocked / in litigation
- Cherokee Nation AI Policy · Cherokee Nation (OK) · In effect
- Arkansas public entity AI/ADS policy mandate (Act 848, 2025) · Arkansas · In effect
- IL WOPR (AI therapy ban) · IL · In effect
- Kiowa Tribe data sovereignty resolution (KL-CY-2025-005) · Kiowa Tribe (OK) · In effect
- CPPA Honda ADMT settlement · CA · In effect
- CA AB 1008 (CCPA + AI) · CA · In effect
- SB 1120 (CA Physicians Make Decisions Act) · California · In effect
- New York LOADinG Act (oversight of state-agency automated decisions) · New York · In effect
- An Order Establishing the Maine Artificial Intelligence Task · Maine · In effect
- NCAI Res. NC-24-008 (Digital Sovereignty) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
- NYDFS CL 7 (2024) — Insurance AI Anti-Discrimination · New York · In effect
- CA EO N-12-23 (GenAI) · CA · In effect
- NCAI Res. SAC-22-026 (Emerging Tech) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
- IL AI Video Interview Act (2019, first-in-nation) · IL · In effect
- MI UIA MIDAS Reform Rules · MI · In effect
- VA PDD Act (2017 — first) · Virginia · In effect
- Utah SB 298 (bars AI/algorithmic transaction denials by protected traits) · Utah · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- Alabama Personal Data Protection Act (privacy / profiling opt-out) · Alabama · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- California SB 813 independent AI verification (2026) · California · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- Oklahoma SB 546 (opt out of profiling for significant decisions) · Oklahoma · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- SB 26-189 (Colorado ADMT Law) · Colorado · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- SB 444 (GA AI Insurance Review) · Georgia · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- Maryland Predatory Pricing Act (surveillance pricing) · Maryland · In effect
- CT SB 5 (2026 AI Act) · Connecticut · In effect
- California EO N-9-26 — accelerated AI oversight and kill-switch study · California · In effect
- Muscogee (Creek) Nation digital infrastructure task force · Muscogee (Creek) Nation · In effect
- Virginia IVO AI Safety Study (SB 384/HB 797, 2026) · Virginia · In effect
- NC AI Strategic Roadmap (released Jul. 1, 2026) · North Carolina · In effect
- Indiana HB 1271 (no AI-only claim downcoding) · Indiana · In effect
- Colorado Attorney General Rulemaking for the Automated Decis · Colorado · Proposed / pending
- Washington SB 5395 (limits AI in health-insurance prior-auth denials) · Washington · In effect
- Virginia VITA EA400 AI Utilization Policy (Executive Branch AI deployment standard, 2026) · Virginia · In effect
- Maryland HB 1563 (AI-denial reporting) · Maryland · In effect
- PA AG — GEICO AI Underwriting Settlement · Pennsylvania · In effect
- SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy · State University of New York (SUNY) · In effect
- CO AG Weiser · CO · In effect
- Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement · California · In effect
- AI Systems Code of Ethics and Minimum Risk Management and Go · Texas · In effect
- Artificial Intelligence Framework for Utah P-12 Education: G · Utah State Board of Education (USBE) · In effect
- Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence · Connecticut · In effect
- New York S8831 (shields public employees from AI displacement) · New York · In effect
- Executive Order 26-02 (Strategic Framework for Integration o · Missouri · In effect
- AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools · Ohio Department of Education and Workforce · In effect
- Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act · Kentucky · In effect
- RI Privacy Law (RIDTPPA) · Rhode Island · In effect
- Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act · Indiana · In effect
- California AB 325 (bans anticompetitive use of shared pricing algorithms) · California · In effect
- TRAIGA · Texas · In effect
- Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intell · California Department of Education · In effect
- Guam P.L. 38-77 (AI Task Force) · Guam · In effect
- NJ N.J.A.C. 13:16 (bias law covers AI hiring tools) · New Jersey · In effect
- HI DOI AI Bulletin · HI · In effect
- AG Sunday Leads Coalition of 42 Attorneys General in Letter · Pennsylvania · In effect
- 2025 State of Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Inventory · Connecticut · In effect
- Acceptable Use Policy for Artificial Intelligence · Mississippi · In effect
- Artificial Intelligence Guideline · North Dakota · In effect
- New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (personalized prices need a label) · New York · In effect
- Commonwealth Office of Technology Enterprise Policy CIO-126: · Kentucky · In effect
- Montana MCDPA · Montana · In effect
- Maryland Online Data Privacy Act · Maryland · In effect
- Montana HB 178 (limits on government AI use) · Montana · In effect
- Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy · Louisiana · In effect
- Executive Order No. 24: Advancing Trustworthy Artificial Int · North Carolina · In effect
- Texas HB 3512 government AI training mandate (2025) · Texas · In effect
- TX Government AI Governance (Subchapter S / SB 1964) · Texas · In effect
- TX SB 815 (No AI-Only Insurance Denials) · Texas · In effect
- Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines an · Michigan · In effect
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy, Standard, an · Idaho · In effect
- Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act · Minnesota · In effect
- Executive Order 51 (2025): First-In-The-Nation Agentic Artif · Virginia · In effect
- MA AG · MA · In effect
- Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approv · Minnesota State (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) · In effect
- Minnesota SF 4097 (social-media algorithm disclosure) · Minnesota · In effect
- Tennessee Information Protection Act (opt out of automated profiling decisions) · Tennessee · In effect
- Va. Code 19.2-11.14 (humans, not AI, must decide bail/sentencing/parole) · Virginia · In effect
- New York A433 (state agencies must list AI employment tools) · New York · In effect
- The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation · Maryland · In effect
- New Mexico AI Guidance for K-12 Education 1.0 · New Mexico Public Education Department · In effect
- Board of Regents Policy 6.28, Use of Artificial Intelligence · University System of Georgia (USG) · In effect
- Policy on the Acceptable and Responsible Use of Artificial I · Illinois · In effect
- Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (ENTERPRISE P · Iowa · In effect
- Kentucky SB 4 (AI Governance) · Kentucky · In effect
- WI DOI AI Bulletin · WI · In effect
- WVDE Artificial Intelligence Guidance (v1.2) · West Virginia Department of Education · In effect
- UT System Policy IT0002 / procedure, Acceptable Use of Gener · University of Tennessee System · In effect
- LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar · Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) · In effect
- NJ DOI AI Bulletin · NJ · In effect
- Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190) · Oregon · In effect
- DE DOI AI Bulletin · DE · In effect
- CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide · California State University (CSU System) · In effect
- Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (AI-GV-P2) · Alabama · In effect
- New Jersey Data Protection Act · New Jersey · In effect
- Texas v. Allstate / Arity · TX · In effect
- CA AG Bonta AI legal advisory · CA · In effect
- Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application o · California · In effect
- NJ AG Platkin / DCR · NJ · In effect
- Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey La · New Jersey · In effect
- Executive Order No. 1584 (Fostering Stakeholder Collaboratio · Mississippi · In effect
- IL Bar AI Standing Committee · IL · In effect
- Nebraska NDPA · Nebraska · In effect
- NH Consumer Privacy Act · New Hampshire · In effect
- Delaware Privacy Law (DPDPA) · Delaware · In effect
- OR AG Rosenblum · OR · In effect
- NC DOI AI Bulletin · NC · In effect
- Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligenc · Texas A&M University System · In effect
- MA DOI AI Bulletin · MA · In effect
- Policy on the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Inte · Nevada · In effect
- OK DOI AI Bulletin · OK · In effect
- IA DOI AI Bulletin · IA · In effect
- Cruise SF Pedestrian Incident · CA · In effect
- NY AG · NY · In effect
- Texas v. Pieces Technologies · TX · In effect
- Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K · Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) · In effect
- WV DOI AI Bulletin · WV · In effect
- MI DOI AI Bulletin · MI · In effect
- North Carolina State Government Responsible Use of Artificia · North Carolina · In effect
- Colorado Roadmap for AI in K-12 Education · Colorado Department of Education · In effect
- AR DOI AI Bulletin · AR · In effect
- Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K-12 · Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) · In effect
- VA DOI AI Bulletin · VA · In effect
- Florida Digital Bill of Rights (privacy / profiling opt-out) · Florida · In effect
- Maryland AI Governance Act (2024) · Maryland · In effect
- New Hampshire HB 1688 (state-agency AI limits) · New Hampshire · In effect
- Oregon SB 619 (opt out of profiling; child-data & assessment rules) · Oregon · In effect
- TDPSA · Texas · In effect
- Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools · Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) · In effect
- NE DOI AI Bulletin · NE · In effect
- DC DOI AI Bulletin · DC · In effect
- SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemw · State University of New York (SUNY) · In effect
- DC Bar Op. 388 (GenAI) · DC · In effect
- MD DOI AI Bulletin · MD · In effect
- WA DOI AI Bulletin · WA · In effect
- MA AG Campbell · MA · In effect
- KY DOI AI Bulletin · KY · In effect
- Huang v. Tesla · CA · In effect
- NY Bar AI Report · NY · In effect
- PA DOI AI Bulletin · PA · In effect
- Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for K-12 Classrooms · Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) · In effect
- NJ TRANSIT AI Video-Analytics Grade-Crossing Safety System ( · New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT) · In effect
- RI DOI AI Bulletin · RI · In effect
- IL DOI AI Bulletin · IL · In effect
- VT DOI AI Bulletin · VT · In effect
- Executive Order 24-06: Artificial Intelligence and Data Cent · Rhode Island · In effect
- CT DOI AI Bulletin · CT · In effect
- NV DOI AI Bulletin · NV · In effect
- NH DOI AI Bulletin · NH · In effect
- Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelli · District of Columbia · In effect
- OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy · District of Columbia · Proposed / pending
- AK DOI AI Bulletin · AK · In effect
- CA AG Bonta · CA · In effect
- NJ Supreme Court GenAI Notice · NJ · In effect
- FL Bar Op. 24-1 (GenAI) · FL · In effect
- NC Generative AI Implementation Recommendations and Consider · North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) · In effect
- Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS- · New York · In effect
- California AB 302 (state must inventory its high-risk automated decision systems) · California · In effect
- State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy · Indiana · In effect
- Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy (200-POL-007) · Tennessee · In effect
- CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framewo · California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office · In effect
- Penn State systemwide Generative AI Guidelines · Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) · In effect
- Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in State of Ohio Solutio · Ohio · In effect
- CA Bar GenAI Guidance · CA · In effect
- Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms G · Oregon Department of Education · In effect
- PA EO 2023-19 (GenAI) · PA · In effect
- State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (P · Kansas · In effect
- Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) · Colorado · In effect
- CT SB 1103 (state-government AI oversight) · Connecticut · In effect
- Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA) (profiling opt-out) · Connecticut · In effect
- Virginia VCDPA (opt out of profiling, $7,500/violation) · Virginia · In effect
- PA Act 130 of 2022 (HAVs) · Pennsylvania · In effect
- SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program · Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) · In effect
- OH HB 7 (2022 AV) · Ohio · In effect
- Vermont H.410 / Act 132 (inventory of state AI / automated decision systems) · Vermont · In effect
- UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance frame · University of California (UC System) · In effect
- CO Insurance Algorithmic Discrimination Law · Colorado · In effect
- AI Video Interview Act · Illinois · In effect
- AR Act 1096 (2019 AV) · Arkansas · In effect
- UT HB 101 (2019 AV statute) · Utah · In effect
- NE LB 989 (2018 AV) · Nebraska · In effect
- AZ EO 2018-04 (AV oversight) · Arizona · In effect
- CT Rideshare Dynamic-Pricing Law (surge-price limits) · Connecticut · In effect
- NC HB 469 (2017 AV statute) · North Carolina · In effect
- TX SB 2205 (2017 AV statute) · Texas · In effect
- GA SB 219 (2017 AV statute) · Georgia · In effect
- TN SB 151 (2017 AV Act) · Tennessee · In effect
- CO SB 17-213 (AV statute) · Colorado · In effect
- NY AV testing pilot · New York · In effect
- MI SAVE Acts (2016 AV package) · Michigan · In effect
- FL HB 7027 (2016 driverless AV) · Florida · In effect
- CA SB 1298 (2012 AV authorization) · California · In effect
- NV AB 511 (2011 — first AV statute) · Nevada · In effect
- House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
- Arizona HB 2592 AI state agencies — vetoed 2026 · Arizona · Vetoed
- PR P. del S. 769 / Instituto IA (Express Veto) · Puerto Rico · Vetoed
- RealPage v. James — NY algorithmic rent ban enjoined (2026) · New York · Blocked / in litigation
- NY PSC utility AI inquiry (Case 26-M-0552) · New York · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- Colorado AI Act (repealed) · Colorado · Repealed / replaced
- MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito · New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) · Proposed / pending
- MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Sub · Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYPD subway weapons scanners · Proposed / pending
- PR P. de la C. 347 (pocket vetoed 2026) · Puerto Rico · Vetoed
- PR P. del S. 731 (AI Public Procurement Law) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
- SB1077 · MI · Proposed / pending
- A10909 · NY · Proposed / pending
- HB2678 · PA · Proposed / pending
- HB2666 · PA · Proposed / pending
- HB2669 · PA · Proposed / pending
- SB239 · SD · Expired
- New York Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act (2026) · New York · Proposed / pending
- MI HB 6392 tort liability for AI misidentification · Michigan · Proposed / pending
- NJ S4754 AI unauthorized practice of professions · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
- NJ A5496 AI mortgage tool bias audits · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
- GA HB 679 End Rental Price Fixing Act (2025-2026, expired) · GA · Expired
- PR P. del S. 68 (Gov AI Framework) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
- CCPA Original (AB 375, 2018) · CA · Repealed / replaced
- Algorithmic rent price-fixing ban · Illinois · Expired
- AK HB 358 — deepfake defamation / electioneering (dead, 2024) · Alaska · Expired
- NY S3971B (2019, AI study commission, died) · NY · Expired
- CA SB 7 No Robo Bosses Act (vetoed 2025) · CA · Vetoed
- CA SB 1047 (vetoed) · CA · Vetoed
- VA HB 2094 (vetoed) · VA · Vetoed
- CA AB 2930 (died) · CA · Expired
- CT SB 2 (died) · CT · Expired
- NY S7623B (died) · NY · Expired
County automated decision-making rules (31)
-
In effect
York School District SC AI Responsible Use policy (2026)
York County, SC · Effective August 11, 2026 · York School District, S.C. — Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use policy (adopted August 11, 2026, unanimous Board of Trustees vote)
The York School District is the FIRST of York County, South Carolina's four school districts to enact an official policy for 'ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESPONSIBLE USE.' The district's Board of Trustees approved it unanimously in August 2026, as York County's districts made decisions about screen time, AI and technology use for the returning 2026-27 school year. The 'first in the county' framing is the part worth recording, because it marks where the diffusion curve actually was in South Carolina. Ohio had by then become the first state to REQUIRE every public school district to have an AI policy, and Maryland's AI Ready Schools Act obliges every local education agency to adopt one within 120 days of state guidance. South Carolina had no such mandate, so districts there were acting one at a time and on their own initiative — and in York County, three of four still had not. A district adopting voluntarily in a state without a mandate is doing something different from one complying with a deadline: it has to write or source the policy itself, with no state model to fall back on. The contrast with Ohio's approach, where a district that does nothing else can simply adopt the state's own model policy, is the practical argument for state-level mandates with default text. The policy's substantive terms are not stated in the located source.
-
In effect
Wakulla County FL schools AI policy (2026)
Wakulla County, FL · Effective July 27, 2026 · Wakulla County School District, Fla. — artificial intelligence policy guideline (approved July 27, 2026)
The Wakulla County School Board approved an AI policy guideline at its meeting on July 27, 2026, ahead of the school year. Wakulla took the permissive route — the district ALLOWS the use of AI — but attached three concrete conditions that matter more than the permission. First, users may not upload personally identifiable information into any AI tool or platform unless the district authorizes it. That is a data-protection rule with real teeth in a school setting, where the PII at stake is children's. Second, employees are expected not to rely on AI output without reviewing it for accuracy AND BIAS — naming bias explicitly, not just error. Third, students may not use AI to complete assignments in place of their own thinking. Superintendent Richard Myhre framed the district's approach simply: the idea behind AI is to use it to strengthen the district's processes. Wakulla County is a small coastal district south of Tallahassee. Its policy arrived as Florida districts across the state were writing AI rules for the 2026-27 year and as the Florida State Board of Education moved to regulate AI in public colleges and K-12 schools — so this district policy sits underneath a state framework that was still forming.
-
In effect
Wasatch County UT AI use policy (Jul. 15, 2026)
Wasatch County, UT · Effective July 15, 2026 · Wasatch County, UT Council unanimous vote, July 15, 2026, adopting county government AI use policy
Wasatch County, Utah unanimously adopted a policy on July 15, 2026 setting guardrails for county government use of artificial intelligence. The policy restricts county employees to approved AI tools only, requires disclosure when AI is used, and requires human verification of AI-generated output before it is relied on. The policy governs internal county government use of AI rather than regulating private-sector AI.
-
In effect
Montgomery County PA Generative AI Governance Policy
Montgomery County, PA · Effective November 18, 2025 · Montgomery County PA Commissioners policy (2025) (2025-11-18)
Montgomery County PA (Norristown) adopted AI governance policy: bars PII/PHI in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory of AI tools, and requires impact review before deployment in benefits or eligibility contexts.
-
In effect
Allen County IN County AI Use Policy
Allen County, IN · Effective November 4, 2025 · Allen County Commissioners policy (2025) (2025-11-04)
Allen County IN (Fort Wayne) adopted generative AI use policy: bars CJIS/PHI/PII in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and prohibits AI-only adverse decisions in benefits or eligibility.
-
In effect
Sonoma County CA AI Use Guidelines for County Government
Sonoma County, CA · Effective October 14, 2025 · Sonoma County Administrator policy (2025) (2025-10-14)
Sonoma County adopted AI use guidelines for county employees prohibiting PII/PHI in public LLMs, requiring departmental approval before AI use, mandating disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications, and barring AI-only consequential decisions.
-
In effect
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government AI Use Policy
Fayette County, KY · Effective September 23, 2025 · LFUCG Administrative Regulation on AI (2025) (2025-09-23)
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (consolidated city-county) adopted AI use policy: prohibits PII/PHI in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory, and requires impact review before deployment in resident-facing services.
-
In effect
Williamson County TN Generative AI Use Policy
Williamson County, TN · Effective September 9, 2025 · Williamson County Mayor policy (2025) (2025-09-09)
Williamson County TN (Franklin/Brentwood) adopted generative AI use policy: prohibits CJIS/PHI/PII in public LLMs, requires human review of AI outputs, and mandates departmental inventory of AI-enabled tools.
-
In effect
Lane County OR
Lane County, OR · Effective August 19, 2025 · Lane County Administrator policy (2025) (2025-08-19)
Lane County OR adopted generative AI use policy for county employees: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and requires disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications.
-
In effect
City of Indianapolis & Marion County IN Generative AI Use Policy
Marion County, IN · Effective July 22, 2025 · Indianapolis-Marion County Mayor / Administrator AI Policy (2025) (2025-07-22)
Indianapolis (Unigov) / Marion County adopted citywide and countywide generative AI use policy: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory, and requires impact review before AI-driven decisions in resident services.
-
In effect
San Mateo County CA AI Use & Governance Policy
San Mateo County, CA · Effective June 10, 2025 · San Mateo County Manager policy (2025) (2025-06-10)
San Mateo County adopted AI use and governance policy: requires impact assessment before deployment of AI/ADS in resident-facing services, bans facial-recognition use by county departments without Board authorization, requires inventory of AI tools, and mandates annual public reporting.
-
In effect
Boulder County CO Generative AI Use Policy
Boulder County, CO · Effective May 13, 2025 · Boulder County Administrative Policy (2025) (2025-05-13)
Boulder County adopted generative AI use policy: requires staff training, prohibits entry of confidential or PII data into public LLMs, requires disclosure when AI is used in resident-facing communications, and bans AI-only decisions on benefits or enforcement.
-
In effect
Montgomery County MD AI Governance Framework
Montgomery County, MD · Effective April 30, 2025 · Montgomery County Executive Order 2-25 (AI) (2025-04-30)
Montgomery County Executive Order establishing AI governance framework: requires AI inventory, impact assessment before deployment in resident-facing services, mandatory human review of consequential decisions, prohibition on facial-recognition use by county departments without Council authorization, and annual public reporting.
-
In effect
Tucson Unified School District AI policy revisions (2026)
Tucson, AZ · Effective September 1, 2026 · Tucson Unified School District, Ariz. — AI policy revisions adopted 3-2 (2026)
Tucson Unified School District's governing board approved a trio of AI policy revisions in a close 3-2 vote, and the direction is the opposite of most school AI measures in this dataset: TUSD EXPANDED student access rather than restricting it. The revisions do three things. They EXPAND THE AI DEFINITION TO INCLUDE AGENTIC AI — systems that take actions rather than only generating text, which most district policies written a year earlier do not contemplate at all. They ALLOW MIDDLE SCHOOLERS access to approved AI-enhanced platforms such as CodeHS and Canva. And they ADDRESS EMBEDDED AI IN PRODUCTIVITY SUITES, which is the provision most districts are missing entirely — AI features now ship inside the word processors and presentation tools schools already license, so a policy that governs only standalone AI tools does not reach most of the AI a student actually touches. The dissent is recorded because it is substantive rather than procedural. Board members Val Romero and Sadie Shaw voted no, and Shaw explained why: 'I do think our district needs to have a policy, but personally, I would like our policy to be more prohibitive.' That is a disagreement about direction inside a district that already accepts it needs rules. Set against New York City's one-year prohibition for grades 2-K through 8, and Haddonfield New Jersey's proposed K-5 ban, TUSD represents the permissive pole of the same 2026 debate — and it arrived there by two votes.
-
In effect
Ashland County OH health department AI governance policy (2026)
Ashland County, OH · Effective August 21, 2026 · Ashland County, Ohio — Board of Health AI governance policy (2026)
The Ashland County Board of Health UNANIMOUSLY approved a new AI GOVERNANCE POLICY for the county health department. Most AI-governance policies in this dataset come from school districts, city governments or state agencies; a COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH adopting one is unusual and worth recording separately, because the data a local health department holds is among the most sensitive any small public body handles — communicable disease reporting, vital records, inspections, immunisation registries, and in many counties direct clinical services. An AI tool introduced into that environment touches protected health information by default rather than by exception. What the policy actually requires is not established here, which is the entry's principal limitation. Ohio is the most active state in this dataset on data centers, but this is a different kind of measure entirely and should not be read as part of that cluster.
-
In effect
FCPS formal generative AI restrictions — elementary ban, secondary authorization required
Fairfax County Public Schools, VA · Effective August 1, 2026 · Fairfax County Public Schools School Board formal policy action on generative AI restrictions (adopted July 23, 2026; effective SY 2026-27)
The Fairfax County School Board voted on July 23, 2026 to adopt formal generative AI restrictions that take effect for the 2026-27 school year. Elementary students are prohibited from using any generative AI tools. Secondary students may only use generative AI if they receive written authorization from a principal, superintendent, or designee for a specific project. Pre-K and kindergarten students are banned from using school-issued tablets and laptops, with exceptions for students whose IEP, 504 plan, or multilingual learner status requires device access. The restrictions supersede the district's prior interim guidance (FCPS Forward: AI & The Future of Learning, September 2025), which had approved certain tools including Adobe Express and a ChatGPT pilot for teachers. Parental opt-out for school-issued devices and a YouTube content firewall were also under consideration.
-
In effect
Board Policy O-AIU and CMS Generative AI Guidance (2025-26)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC · Effective October 28, 2025 · Board Policy O-AIU and CMS Generative AI Guidance (2025-26)
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools board approved Board Policy O-AIU on Oct. 28, 2025, requiring an AI committee to review any AI system using staff or student data, mandating FERPA-compliant vetting, age-appropriate tools, and barring AI from replacing human decision-making.
-
In effect
MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband
Maricopa County, AZ (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) · Effective October 20, 2025 · MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband detection (LINEV Systems)
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deployed ten AI-assisted X-ray body scanners across six jail facilities to detect internally concealed contraband on inmates using automated anomaly detection and drug-detection software.
-
In effect
Ordinance outlawing algorithmic rent price fixing in unincor
King County, WA · Effective September 23, 2025 · Ordinance outlawing algorithmic rent price fixing in unincorporated King County
King County (sponsored by Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, passed Sept 23, 2025 as the 11th US jurisdiction) prohibits landlords in unincorporated King County from contracting with algorithmic rent-setting services like RealPage, letting harmed renters sue for up to $7,500 per violation plus damages and attorneys' fees.
-
In effect
District Policy 3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use
Washington County School District, UT · Effective September 8, 2025 · District Policy 3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use
Washington County (UT) School District's board policy frames AI as a teacher assistant requiring human oversight, generally prohibits using confidential or FERPA-protected student data with AI tools, and bars students from using AI to plagiarize, generate deepfakes, or bypass security filters.
-
In effect
Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines (
Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL · Effective August 12, 2025 · Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines (tiered framework)
The Miami-Dade County Public Schools board approved a measure directing staff to create comprehensive ethical AI guidelines for students and teachers, including a tiered use framework and misuse-consequences, with recommendations due back to the board.
-
In effect
Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortio
Johnson County, TX (Johnson County Sheriff's Office) · Effective May 9, 2025 · Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortion 'death investigation')
Johnson County Sheriff's deputies ran nationwide Flock automated license plate reader searches across tens of thousands of cameras and thousands of networks to locate a woman in a self-managed-abortion investigation, illustrating an operational sheriff ALPR practice.
-
In effect
RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detect
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) · Effective June 19, 2024 · RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detection Deployment
The RTC became the first US transit agency to deploy wide-scale ZeroEyes AI gun-detection analytics across its transit-center cameras, later expanding the program by over 300% to all eight transit centers.
-
In effect
Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance us
Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office) · Effective April 1, 2023 · Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance use policy
The Spokane County Sheriff's RTCC fuses surveillance cameras, license plate readers, BriefCam video analytics, 911 and social media data for real-time intelligence while stating it does not use facial recognition biometric software and applies access controls and audits.
-
In effect
Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Moni
Central Bucks School District, PA · Effective March 1, 2023 · Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Monitoring Trial
Central Bucks SD (PA) authorized a district-wide trial of GoGuardian Beacon to conduct 24/7 AI monitoring of middle- and high-school students' online activity on district devices, with a potential $114,000+ subscription pending trial-data review.
-
In effect
Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial
Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department) · Effective March 1, 2021 · Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
The Orange County Sheriff's UAV policy sets rules for lawful, FAA Part 107-compliant drone operations, requiring mission briefs, after-action reports, and prohibiting missions that violate the public's privacy rights.
-
In effect
Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technolog
Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office) · Effective April 1, 2019 · Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technologies 'Verus')
The Suffolk County Sheriff's jail deployed LEO Technologies' Verus AI, which uses Amazon speech-to-text to transcribe and keyword-flag inmate phone calls, monitoring over 2.5 million calls between April 2019 and May 2020.
-
In effect
PA Allegheny AFST
Allegheny County, PA · Effective August 1, 2016 · Allegheny County DHS AFST Methodology (May 2019 update)
Allegheny County deploys a predictive risk model — the Allegheny Family Screening Tool — to score child-welfare hotline calls. Decisions to screen-in cases for investigation incorporate AFST scores. The DOJ has investigated the tool for ADA discrimination concerns; the county continues to operate it with documented protocols.
-
Proposed / pending
Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (Brief
Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail) · Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (BriefCam) contract
The Cook County Sheriff's Office proposed a $1.12M three-year BriefCam contract to add AI video analytics, facial recognition, and object identification across Cook County Jail's video, drawing opposition from 80 community groups.
-
Proposed / pending
Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft)
Wake County Public School System, NC · Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft)
Wake County Public School System advanced draft Policy 1910 on generative AI on June 17, 2026, which discourages AI detectors, requires students to disclose and explain AI use and cite it, and bars sharing student PII with certain AI systems, pending board approval.
- 1 more
- Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Moni · Fort Bend Independent School District, TX · Proposed / pending
City / local automated decision-making rules (142)
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Seattle CB 121267 grocery surveillance pricing ban (2026)
Seattle, WA · Effective September 1, 2027 · Seattle Council Bill 121267, Fair and Transparent Pricing ordinance (new SMC ch. 7.35; passed Sept. 22, 2026)
On September 22, 2026 the Seattle City Council voted 7-2 to pass the Fair and Transparent Pricing ordinance (Council Bill 121267; reported by Supermarket News as the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act), which bans large grocery retailers and delivery platforms from using a shopper's personal data, through algorithms, to set individualized prices for groceries and other essentials. Data covered includes things like browsing history, location, inferred income, race, gender, employment status, social media activity and chatbot conversations. Prices must be clearly posted and available to all shoppers equally, while ordinary coupons, loyalty programs and sales remain allowed. City officials describe Seattle as the first U.S. city to adopt such a ban.
-
In effect
NYC DOE Generative AI Moratorium (K-8, 2026-27)
New York City, NY · Effective September 2, 2026 · NYC DOE Chancellor Regulation — Generative AI Moratorium (Sept. 2, 2026); announced by Mayor Mamdani and Chancellor Samuels
Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels imposed a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI for grades pre-K (2-K) through 8th grade across New York City public schools, effective for the 2026-2027 school year. Affects approximately 600,000 students — nearly two-thirds of the city's 900,000-student enrollment. Companion chatbots prohibited across all grades. Over 38 previously-allowed programs discontinued or disabled. Five limited AI pilots allowed for up to 50,000 high school students in general education; all high schoolers gain twice-yearly AI literacy classes. A new Technology in Schools Coalition will study outcomes and publish recommendations. The nation's largest school district becomes the most restrictive on student AI use in the country.
-
In effect
NYC schools generative AI moratorium through 8th grade (2026)
New York City, NY · Effective September 2, 2026 · New York City Public Schools — generative AI moratorium for grades 2-K through 8 (announced September 2, 2026, effective school year 2026-27)
On September 2, 2026 New York City announced a one-year ban on student use of generative artificial intelligence in its public schools from 2-K through eighth grade. It is the broadest generative AI moratorium adopted by any school system in the United States, and because New York City runs the country's largest school district it reaches roughly 600,000 students — about two-thirds of the district's enrollment. Student-facing AI tools and companion chatbots are prohibited for those grades while a coalition of educators, parents, experts and elected officials studies what the technology does to children and recommends what should happen next. The policy is not a blanket prohibition. There are carve-outs for students with disabilities and multilingual learners, and for settings such as career readiness programs and computer science. High school is treated differently again: public high schoolers will take two AI critical thinking classes during the 2026-27 school year, and a small number of high school classrooms will be allowed to use AI pilot platforms under a teacher's direct supervision. The same announcement set new limits on classroom screen time. The distinction worth holding onto is that the district paused AI use by young students while requiring older students to study AI — a restriction paired with a literacy requirement rather than a simple ban.
-
In effect
NYC AEDT Bias Audit Law (LL 144)
New York City, NY · Effective January 1, 2023 · NYC Local Law 144 of 2021; NYC Admin. Code §§ 20-870 to 20-874
Employers and employment agencies in New York City may not use AI hiring or promotion tools unless the tool has passed an independent bias audit within the past year. Job candidates must be told an automated tool is being used and can request information about the data it relies on.
-
In effect
Oakland Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban
Oakland, CA · Oakland, Cal., Mun. Code ch. 9.64
Oakland requires City Council approval and public use policies before city agencies acquire any surveillance technology, and bans city use of facial recognition. In December 2020 the city added first-in-the-nation bans on predictive policing and other biometric surveillance (such as voice and gait recognition). Remains in effect, overseen by Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Liu v. Willow Bridge/RealPage (Philadelphia)
Philadelphia, PA · Effective July 28, 2026 · Liu et al. v. Willow Bridge Property Co. & RealPage, Inc., Phila. County Ct. of Common Pleas (filed July 28, 2026)
Three class-action lawsuits were filed in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas on July 28, 2026 — the first known enforcement actions under Philadelphia's algorithmic rent-fixing ban (Bill 240823). Tenant Yiyao Liu and others sued Willow Bridge Property Co. (one of the largest U.S. residential property managers) and RealPage Inc., alleging Willow Bridge used RealPage's software to obtain rent recommendations derived from nonpublic competitor data in violation of the city ordinance. Plaintiffs seek treble damages or $2,000 statutory amount per violation, plus injunctive relief.
-
In effect
Santa Ana CA ban on algorithmic rent-setting software (anticompetitive devices)
Santa Ana, CA · Effective April 2, 2026 · Santa Ana, CA City Council ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software (final passage March 3, 2026; effective ~April 2, 2026)
Santa Ana, California (Orange County) enacted an ordinance on March 3, 2026 banning algorithmic rent-setting software that uses nonpublic competitor data to set or recommend residential rents. The ordinance targets software that feeds landlords' nonpublic pricing data (real-time rents, renewal rates, occupancy levels) into AI models to recommend rent increases in a way that facilitates coordination among competing landlords, driving rents higher without explicit agreement. Landlords caught using banned software face fines of $1,000 per violation. Tenants can sue for injunctive relief, damages, or civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation, plus attorney's fees. The law does not restrict software that relies solely on publicly available data, historical trends, or tools used for affordable housing compliance. Santa Ana is Orange County's most populous city (pop. ~315,000) and one of California's densest cities; it has robust rent stabilization protections already in place. The ordinance makes Santa Ana one of roughly five cities nationwide (with SF, Berkeley, Portland, and Seattle) to have enacted such bans.
-
In effect
Berkeley CA "The Berkeley Rule" AI Policy (2026)
Berkeley, CA · Effective March 10, 2026 · City of Berkeley, "The Berkeley Rule" and AI Use Framework for City Government (City Council action March 10, 2026)
On March 10, 2026, the Berkeley City Council adopted "The Berkeley Rule" — a ten-principle framework authored by Councilmember Ben Bartlett to guide ethical, human-centered use of AI in all city operations. Companion AI guidelines from Councilmember Shoshana O'Keefe require departments to apply bias safeguards, maintain data privacy compliance, and ensure human oversight of automated decisions before deployment. The City Manager's office subsequently drafted a formal AI Administrative Regulation implementing these principles.
-
In effect
Portland OR GenAI Policy
Portland, OR · Effective March 6, 2026 · City of Portland, BTS GenAI Use Policy (2024)
City of Portland Bureau of Technology Services policy on generative AI use by city employees, with required disclosure and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.
-
In effect
Minneapolis algorithmic rent ban (Ord. 2025-010, eff. Mar 1, 2026)
Minneapolis, MN · Effective March 1, 2026 · Minneapolis Ord. 2025-010 (File 2024-01399), adding § 244.2070 to City Code, eff. March 1, 2026
Minneapolis City Council adopted Ordinance 2025-010 amending Title 12, Chapter 244 of the City Code to add Section 244.2070, prohibiting residential landlords from using algorithmic devices that employ nonpublic competitor data to recommend rental pricing or vacancy strategies. Effective March 1, 2026. A White House report estimated Twin Cities renters paid on average $324 more per unit annually due to pricing algorithms, with the national total exceeding $3.8 billion. Private right of action; license revocation possible for landlord violations.
-
In effect
NYC GUARD Act (Gov't AI Accountability)
New York City, NY · Effective December 26, 2025 · NYC Council Int. Nos. 199-A, 926-A, 1024-A (GUARD Act, passed Nov. 25, 2025; lapsed into law Dec. 26, 2025; Intro 1024-A = Local Law 195 of 2025)
The NYC City Council unanimously passed three bills on November 25, 2025 known as the GUARD Act (Guaranteeing Unbiased AI Regulation and Disclosure), creating independent oversight of city government AI use. The package creates an independent Office of Algorithmic Data Accountability, sets mandatory fairness-testing and transparency standards for all agency AI tools, and requires a public registry of every AI system that has undergone a pre-deployment assessment. Because Mayor Adams neither signed nor vetoed the bills within the 30-day window, they lapsed into law on December 26, 2025. Intro 1024-A was assigned Local Law 195 of 2025; the Local Law numbers for Intros 199-A and 926-A still await Legistar confirmation.
-
In effect
Seattle algorithmic rent-fixing ban (Ord. 127241 / SMC 7.34, July 2025)
Seattle, WA · Effective July 31, 2025 · Seattle Ord. 127241 / CB 121000, signed July 1, 2025, eff. July 31, 2025; codified SMC Chapter 7.34
Seattle City Council passed CB 121000 on June 24, 2025 (Mayor signed July 1, 2025; effective July 31, 2025), creating SMC Chapter 7.34 to prohibit algorithmic rent-fixing. The ordinance bans landlords from using software or data services that pool pricing recommendations based on nonpublic competitor data — targeting RealPage-style pricing coordination. Publicly available rent estimates and listings remain permitted. Penalties reach $7,500 per violation, and each affected rental unit counts separately. Tenants can also sue for actual damages plus attorneys' fees.
-
In effect
Hoboken Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Ban
Hoboken, NJ · Effective July 9, 2025 · Hoboken City Council ordinance banning algorithmic rent-fixing, adopted July 9, 2025
Hoboken, NJ banned landlords from using algorithmic rent-fixing software. The ordinance passed unanimously (8-0) on July 9, 2025 and took effect immediately. It defines 'price fixing using algorithmic pricing' as the use of software or algorithms that collect nonpublic competitor data to coordinate rental pricing across multiple properties. Violations carry fines up to $20,000 per offense, up to 90 days imprisonment, or up to 90 days of community service. All residential rental properties are covered, excluding medical/long-term care and detention facilities.
-
In effect
San Diego algorithmic rent price-fixing ban (Ord. O-21955, May 2025)
San Diego, CA · Effective June 12, 2025 · San Diego Ord. O-21955, adopted May 13, 2025, eff. June 12, 2025
San Diego City Council adopted Ordinance O-21955 on May 13, 2025 (effective June 12, 2025), prohibiting landlords from using algorithmic tools that rely on nonpublic competitor data — current lease rates, occupancy levels, and vacancy strategies from competing properties — to recommend residential rent prices. Public data tools and affordable-housing compliance software are permitted. Penalties reach $1,000 per violation per month per property. Tenants can sue for damages and recover attorney's fees. Before the ban, an estimated 22 percent of San Diego County landlords reported using tools such as RealPage.
-
In effect
Oakland GenAI Policy
Oakland, CA · Effective December 1, 2024 · City of Oakland ITD, Interim Security Guidelines for AI Usage (2024)
City of Oakland Information Technology Department policy on city employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure rules and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.
-
In effect
Philadelphia Bill 240823 — Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Ban
Philadelphia, PA · Effective November 13, 2024 · Philadelphia Bill No. 240823 (adopted Oct. 24, 2024; signed Nov. 13, 2024; effective Nov. 13, 2024)
Philadelphia's Bill 240823 (sponsored by Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke, passed 17-0 on October 24, 2024 and signed November 13, 2024) bars landlords from using revenue-management software that pools private competitor leasing data to coordinate rents, with fines up to $2,000 per violation and a private right of action for tenants. On July 28, 2026 three class-action lawsuits were filed — the first known enforcement actions under the ordinance — against Willow Bridge Property Co. and RealPage Inc.
-
In effect
Phoenix GenAI AUP
Phoenix, AZ · Effective March 1, 2024 · City of Phoenix, GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Phoenix Information Technology Services Department policy on city employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure rules and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.
-
In effect
DC AI Values Mayor's Order
Washington, DC · Effective February 8, 2024 · D.C. Mayor's Order 2024-028 (Feb. 8, 2024)
Mayor Bowser's order requires DC government agencies to check any AI deployment against six AI Values: clear benefit to the people, safety and equity, accountability, transparency, sustainability, and privacy and cybersecurity. It created an AI Taskforce, set deadlines including a mandatory AI procurement handbook, and requires every agency to submit an AI strategic plan in cohorts through October 2026.
-
In effect
San Jose AI Reviews Board
San Jose, CA · Effective August 1, 2023 · City of San Jose, AI Reviews Board (2023)
City of San Jose established an internal AI Reviews Board to review AI tools used by city departments and helped launch the multi-city GovAI Coalition for shared AI procurement standards.
-
In effect
Boston Interim GenAI Guidelines
Boston, MA · Effective May 18, 2023 · City of Boston, Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI (May 18, 2023)
Boston Mayor's Office interim guidelines authorizing limited use of generative AI tools by city employees with required disclosure and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.
-
In effect
NYC EO 3 / Citywide AI Policy
New York City, NY · Effective January 19, 2022 · N.Y.C. Exec. Order No. 3 (Jan. 19, 2022)
Mayoral executive order consolidating NYC's technology agencies by redesignating the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications as the Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI), which oversees the Mayor's Office of Data Analytics, the Chief Technology Officer, the Office of Information Privacy, NYC Cyber Command, NYC 311, and the Algorithms Management and Policy office.
-
In effect
NYC Algorithmic Tools Reporting (LL35)
New York City, NY · Effective January 15, 2022 · NYC Admin. Code § 3-119.5 (Local Law 35 of 2022)
Every NYC agency must publicly report, each year, every algorithmic tool it used to make or assist decisions that materially affect the public's rights, benefits, or access to services. Reports must describe each tool's purpose, the data it uses, and any vendor involvement, and are published as an open dataset.
-
In effect
Seattle Surveillance Ordinance
Seattle, WA · Effective September 1, 2017 · Seattle Ordinance 125376 (2017), SMC ch. 14.18, as amended 2018
Seattle requires city departments to get City Council approval before acquiring or using surveillance technologies, supported by public Surveillance Impact Reports and review by a community working group. One of the earliest and most comprehensive municipal surveillance-oversight laws in the country.
-
Proposed / pending
NYC AI rental listing disclosure proposal (Mamdani, 2026)
New York City, NY · NYC Mayor Mamdani AI rental listing disclosure proposal, introduced July 2026
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposed a rule in July 2026 requiring landlords and rental listing platforms to disclose when artificial intelligence tools are used to generate, rank, or filter rental listings. The proposal is part of a broader Mamdani housing-affordability agenda and reflects growing concern about AI tools that use algorithmic pricing and screening to affect housing access. The proposal was pending City Council introduction as of the date of this entry.
-
In effect
Ocean City MD first municipal AI policy (2026)
Ocean City, MD · Effective August 26, 2026 · Ocean City, Md. — first municipal AI policy governing town workers, sensitive data, approved tools and wearable devices (2026)
Ocean City adopted its FIRST AI POLICY, setting rules for TOWN WORKERS covering SENSITIVE DATA, APPROVED TOOLS and WEARABLE DEVICES as the technology spreads. The wearable-devices provision is the one worth noting, because it is rare. Most municipal AI policies in this dataset govern software — which generative tools staff may use, what may be pasted into them, whether output must be reviewed by a human. Extending the policy to WEARABLES reaches hardware that records continuously and often without the awareness of the people being recorded: smart glasses, body-worn recorders, AI pins and the like. For a beach resort town whose employees include lifeguards, police, inspectors and public works crews operating constantly among the public, that is a live question rather than a theoretical one. The approved-tools element is the other standard protection: restricting staff to a vetted list is what prevents sensitive municipal data being pasted into whatever consumer chatbot an employee happens to prefer. The policy's actual requirements are not established here.
-
In effect
Cleveland OH Flock 6-month renewal w/ data-sharing restrictions (Jul. 15, 2026)
Cleveland, OH · Effective July 15, 2026 · Cleveland, OH City Council 9-6 vote, July 15, 2026, six-month Flock Safety renewal with no-data-sharing and no-fusion-center conditions
Cleveland City Council voted 9-6 on July 15, 2026 to keep the city's Flock Safety license plate reader cameras for another six months — but attached new restrictions the prior contract lacked. Under the renewal, Flock data may not be shared with other governments or third parties, and access by the regional fusion center is cut off. The short six-month term functions as a probationary period. This entry indexes a surveillance deployment renewal; the new data-sharing restrictions are the operative oversight conditions.
-
In effect
Huntington WV Flock contract approved 6-4 (Jul. 14, 2026)
Huntington, WV · Effective July 14, 2026 · Huntington, WV City Council 6-4 vote, July 14, 2026, approving $2.1M Flock Safety surveillance contract
The Huntington, West Virginia City Council voted 6-4 on July 14, 2026 to approve a $2.1 million contract with Flock Safety for a citywide surveillance package: 40 automated license plate readers, 17 cameras, 2 drones, 2 gunshot detectors, and audio detection capability. The vote came after a council meeting that ran more than 8 hours, at which more than 50 residents spoke in opposition. This entry indexes a government AI surveillance deployment, not a protection; available coverage describes no independent oversight, audit requirement, or data-sharing restrictions attached to the approval. Two days later the ACLU of West Virginia filed a mandamus petition challenging the contract (see litig-aclu-wv-v-huntington-flock-2026).
-
In effect
Fredericksburg VA Axon AI package w/ Draft One carve-out (Jul. 14, 2026)
Fredericksburg, VA · Effective July 14, 2026 · Fredericksburg, VA City Council authorization, July 14, 2026, of $1.9M/5-year Axon AI package (Draft One with critical-incident bar, translation, transcription, in-car cameras, mobile ALPR)
The Fredericksburg, Virginia City Council authorized a $1.9 million, five-year package with Axon on July 14, 2026 that adds AI capabilities across the police department: Draft One (Axon's generative AI police-report drafting tool), AI translation, transcription, in-car cameras, and mobile license plate readers. The package carries one notable guardrail: Draft One is optional for officers and is barred from use in critical incidents — meaning reports on the most serious events must be written by humans. Otherwise this entry indexes a government AI deployment.
-
In effect
Hillsborough County FL Public Schools Board Policy 2130
Tampa, FL · Effective June 2, 2026 · Hillsborough County FL Public Schools Board Policy 2130 — Emerging Technologies + AI Implementation Guide (2026-06-02)
Adopted Board Policy 2130 with an AI Implementation Guide; authorizes vetted AI primarily for teacher use, withholds student access to the enterprise platform initially, and is extending to AI smart-glasses restrictions in classrooms.
-
In effect
Henrico County VA Schools AI Policy 5-6.6
Henrico, VA · Effective May 12, 2026 · Henrico County VA Public Schools Policy 5-6.6 Artificial Intelligence Systems, adopted May 12, 2026
Henrico County Public Schools Board adopted Policy 5-6.6 Artificial Intelligence Systems on May 12, 2026, establishing an AI Task Force (created by board resolution in 2025) to oversee implementation, monitor AI developments, and recommend policy updates. The policy authorizes district-vetted enterprise AI tools, requires human review of AI-generated student-facing content, bars non-consensual deepfakes, and prohibits AI as the sole basis for grading or discipline. Henrico County is a Northern Virginia suburban district serving approximately 51,000 students.
- 112 more
- Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Techn · Austin, TX · In effect
- Columbus City Schools AI Policy (teacher discretion, plagiarism rules) · Columbus, OH · In effect
- Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'materia · Cambridge, MA · In effect
- Ordinance 192122 - Prohibition of anti-competitive algorithm · Portland, OR · In effect
- Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools · Charlotte, NC · In effect
- Township High School District 211 · Palatine, IL · In effect
- Greenwich CT Public Schools · Greenwich, CT · In effect
- Durham NC Public Schools · Durham, NC · In effect
- Iowa City Community School District · Iowa City, IA · In effect
- Prince William County VA Public Schools · Manassas, VA · In effect
- Prince George's County MD Public Schools · Upper Marlboro, MD · In effect
- Newton MA Public Schools · Newton, MA · In effect
- Oakland Unified School District · Oakland, CA · In effect
- Cleveland Metropolitan School District · Cleveland, OH · In effect
- Baltimore City Public Schools · Baltimore, MD · In effect
- Fresno USD AI Guidance · Fresno, CA · In effect
- AUHSD AI Guidance · Anaheim, CA · In effect
- NYC Public Schools Guidance on AI · New York, NY · In effect
- Fairfax County VA Public Schools · Fairfax, VA · In effect
- School District of Philadelphia · Philadelphia, PA · In effect
- Boston Public Schools · Boston, MA · In effect
- Volusia County FL Schools · DeLand, FL · In effect
- Naperville Community Unit School District 203 · Naperville, IL · In effect
- Public Schools of Brookline · Brookline, MA · In effect
- Mesa Public Schools AZ · Mesa, AZ · In effect
- M-DCPS AI guidance directive (2025) · Miami, FL · In effect
- Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook & Permission/Consent Form (SY 25-26) · Houston, TX · In effect
- Cherokee County GA School District · Canton, GA · In effect
- CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,5 · Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) · In effect
- Santa Monica Algorithmic Rent-Setting Ban · Santa Monica, CA · In effect
- Loudoun County VA Public Schools · Ashburn, VA · In effect
- Dallas ISD AI Handbook (Policies DEC/EIA/FD/FNCA amended) · Dallas, TX · In effect
- Council Bill 121000 - Ban on algorithmic rent fixing (SMC 7. · Seattle, WA · In effect
- Lee's Summit MO · Lees Summit, MO · In effect
- Ordinance prohibiting price-fixing rental algorithms · Providence, RI · In effect
- Ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software · Jersey City, NJ · In effect
- Culver City CA · Culver City, CA · In effect
- Austin AI Governance Resolution (2025) · Austin, TX · In effect
- Denver Public Schools AI Handbook · Denver, CO · In effect
- Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting device · Berkeley, CA · Proposed / pending
- Howard County MD Public School System · Ellicott City, MD · In effect
- Olathe KS · Olathe, KS · In effect
- Seattle Public Schools AI Handbook + Superintendent Procedure 2022SP · Seattle, WA · In effect
- San Diego Unified School District · San Diego, CA · In effect
- Overland Park KS · Overland Park, KS · In effect
- Frederick MD · Frederick, MD · In effect
- Broward County FL Powered by AI · Fort Lauderdale, FL · In effect
- San Francisco Unified School District · San Francisco, CA · In effect
- Arlington VA Public Schools · Arlington, VA · In effect
- Princeton NJ Public Schools · Princeton, NJ · In effect
- Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to · San Francisco, CA · In effect
- Santa Clara County CA Office of Education · San Jose, CA · In effect
- Saint Paul Public Schools · Saint Paul, MN · In effect
- Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime · Seattle, WA · In effect
- Olympia WA · Olympia, WA · In effect
- Glendale CA · Glendale, CA · In effect
- Forsyth County GA Schools · Cumming, GA · In effect
- Minneapolis Public Schools · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
- Hialeah GenAI Policy · Hialeah, FL · In effect
- Montgomery County MD Public Schools · Rockville, MD · In effect
- Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intellige · Chappaqua Central School District, NY · In effect
- Jefferson County CO Public Schools (Jeffco) · Golden, CO · In effect
- Clark County NV STELLAR AI Framework · Las Vegas, NV · In effect
- Chicago Public Schools AI Guidebook · Chicago, IL · In effect
- Tulsa GenAI Policy · Tulsa, OK · In effect
- Birmingham AL GenAI Policy · Birmingham, AL · In effect
- Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Mo · Vancouver Public Schools, WA · In effect
- Gwinnett County GA Public Schools · Lawrenceville, GA · In effect
- Long Beach CA · Long Beach, CA · In effect
- San Diego GenAI Policy · San Diego, CA · In effect
- Metro Nashville GenAI Policy · Nashville, TN · In effect
- Arlington TX GenAI Policy · Arlington, TX · In effect
- Louisville Metro GenAI Policy · Louisville, KY · In effect
- SLC GenAI Policy · Salt Lake City, UT · In effect
- St. Louis GenAI Policy · St. Louis, MO · In effect
- Fort Worth GenAI Policy · Fort Worth, TX · In effect
- LAUSD BUL-151113.0 · Los Angeles, CA · In effect
- San Antonio GenAI Pilot Governance · San Antonio, TX · In effect
- Seattle Generative AI Policy · Seattle, WA · In effect
- San Jose GenAI Guidelines · San Jose, CA · In effect
- Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Belief · Peninsula School District, WA · In effect
- Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance bannin · New Orleans, LA · In effect
- Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri · Oakland, CA · In effect
- Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) · Oakland, CA · In effect
- Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
- Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and f · Santa Cruz, CA · In effect
- Bellingham Initiative 26-01 to Ban Algorithmic Rental Price- · Bellingham · Proposed / pending
- NYC AI Action Plan · New York City, NY · In effect
- San José AI Policy · San Jose, CA · In effect
- Long Beach GenAI Guidance · Long Beach, CA · In effect
- Pittsburgh GenAI Use Policy · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
- Wake County NC Public School System · Raleigh, NC · In effect
- Use of Algorithms in Rental Rates Ordinance · Minneapolis, MN · Proposed / pending
- Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor a · Denver, CO · Expired
- Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (preliminary 'traffic li · New York City Public Schools, NY · Proposed / pending
- Cambridge MA algorithmic rent-setting ban (policy order, Jun. 2026) · Cambridge, MA · Proposed / pending
- Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight · New York City · Proposed / pending
- AI Gendered Impact Assessment + Interagency Taskforce · New York City · Proposed / pending
- NYC resolution urging NY State to pass Advanced AI Licensing Act (A.3356) · New York City · Status unknown
- Atlanta City Council resolution accepting AI Commission recommendations · Atlanta · Status unknown
- Haddonfield NJ schools generative AI policy (first reading) · Haddonfield, NJ · Proposed / pending
- Portland OR COST surveillance pricing ordinance (proposed 2026) · Portland, OR · Proposed / pending
- DC SDAA (B24-0558) · Washington, DC · Proposed / pending
- NYC Int 1003-2024 · New York, NY · Proposed / pending
- NYC Int 1196-2025 · New York, NY · Proposed / pending
- DC SDAA (B25-0114) · Washington, DC · Proposed / pending
- Orange County FL Public Schools · Orlando, FL · Proposed / pending
- Chicago City AI Ordinance (stalled) · Chicago, IL · Proposed / pending
- NYC AI Oversight Office Bill · New York City, NY · Proposed / pending
- LA Council holds LAPD/Axon streetlight ALPR pilot (Oct. 2026) · Los Angeles, CA · Proposed / pending
- NYC LL144 (original draft) · New York City, NY · Repealed / replaced
- DC Algorithm Bill (not enacted) · Washington, DC · Expired